https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245481 The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the appellant's income at 25% for the undisclosed amounts in question. For the first issue, the Tribunal estimated income under section 69 due to lack of proper explanation for the sources of investment. Regarding the second issue, income received from M/s. Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd. was deemed liable for TDS as mobilization advance, with 25% of the receipt considered as the appellant's income. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:09:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245481 The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the appellant's income at 25% for the undisclosed amounts in question. For the first issue, the Tribunal estimated income under section 69 due to lack of proper explanation for the sources of investment. Regarding the second issue, income received from M/s. Jana Chaitanya Housing Ltd. was deemed liable for TDS as mobilization advance, with 25% of the receipt considered as the appellant's income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245481